Jump to content

ric

Member
  • Content Count

    485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by ric


  1. Hey.

    I'm gonna get a completely new rig in a month or two and I was wondering if it could run the game on medium-high.

    Intel Core i5-3570K

    EVGA GTX 660Ti 3GB Superclocked

    ASRock Z77 PRO4

    GoodRam DDR3 4gb 1600MHz CL9 x2

    OCZ ModXStream PRO 600W

    CoolerMaster Hyper 212 EVO

    Sorry if I put up too much info :p

    also 1st post get

    yes , you should be able to run high, MP FPS will vary depending on server and mission.


  2. someone blogged a compile of all public infomation

    ignore the text and use the tables (almost fully refrecned)

    http://aircraft.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Fightercraft4/F-22_Raptor_vs._Sukhoi_PAK-FA

    that along with comments by a friend who should know about the F35 (Aussies AF), who basicly said its a concept fighter thats just one big concesion. its to slow, but not stealthy enough to cover, and to lightly armed to cover that, and not maverable enough to cover that. and finally its short ranged and over priced.

    he personally thinks AUS should go for the russian option that is far more practical, even if its a f18 contempory, instead of a f22 competior, since they are cheaper, faster, longer ranged, and better armed

    thnx for the info.


  3. ok, i searched the fourms, no answer,

    but recently, i am experiencing drifting / floating when i move my character.

    when i tap on W to move forward, it is ok.

    but when i hold down W for more than a few seconds, and let go, my character either stops 5 seconds after i let go of the W key, or the character keeps continually moving forward until i pull up the inventory or kit many keys.

    (i disable sticky keys on Win 7 control panel.)

    any ideas? im finding arma3 un-playable because of this.

    systems specs please, is your pad/keyboard though a USB connection?


  4. In the context of the "2035" setting, that would seem to be 5.56 mm weapons in general...

    maybe not...star trek here we come http://www.army.mil/article/109049/

    here is an article showing the 5 candidates one of them uses a 6.8 and one of the others comes in 7.62 and 5.56

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-205_162-10006737.html

    who really knows what 2035 will bring...maybe will see the first T1000 ,i feel sorry for any one named sarah conner :) I mean look at all the unmanned stuff we are using now.


  5. Observed while flying near kavala, with intentionally high view/object distance (3000/3000).

    Note, that not the GPU nor the CPU was overloaded here, but the GPU memory seems to reach a critical limit periodical, as shown in the picture bellow.

    It seems a video memory overload situation, causes drastical recovery actions here (to free some GPU memory).

    The falling edges in the GPU memory allocation graph, are identical with the "stutters" in game.

    To verify, you can use process explorer (sysinternals/microsoft), double click on arma3.exe process and select tab "GPU Graph", graph "Dedicated GPU memory".

    Greets,

    Fred41

    http://i44.tinypic.com/14dovw2.png

    do you get the exact same behavior if you set lower and higher view/object?


  6. the F35 is not a good plane, the only reason its still in the R&D cycle (it should be finished) is kickbacks and bribes. DOD is trying to cancel it but apprently "jobs".

    its out preformed in every way by both the RUS and CHI 5th gen fighters that are both roughly equal to the f22, but their are going to be more of them then f22's

    do you have a link to this information?


  7. According to one of those Techspot comments, the game is already phenomenally optimized! :P

    did they really say "phenomenally"? i personally just thought it was fabulously optimized...but wow its higher than i thought :P

    ---------- Post added at 00:22 ---------- Previous post was at 00:21 ----------

    So I'm guessing I should wait until they optimize first?

    no, do what you are going to do irrelevant to the state of arma.

    ---------- Post added at 00:39 ---------- Previous post was at 00:22 ----------

    ok I just went and looked at the techspot review and have to call BS, they are bench marking CPU performance using a GTX titan...there is a FX 4100 getting 43 FPS on ultra.....how many people put a $1000 video card with a $100 CPU? please raise your hand if that's your rig because we will dispatch the clean young men in clean whites to pick you up :)


  8. If you are upgrading for A3 exclusively: take the 4570. The 4430 is terrible value compared to the 4570.

    Here is why: Both have a Turbo mode. But the 4430 only overclocks a single core from 3.0ghz to 3.2ghz. If there is load on all cores, it stays at stock 3.0ghz. The 4570 overclocks all cores from 3.2ghz to 3.4ghz or one core to 3.6ghz. Price difference should only be like 10 bucks.

    The 8350 (the 8320, which you can overclock yourself, is way better value by the way) is a good CPU, but it needs multicore support to shine. Arma has terrible multicore support, so what counts is good singlecore performance. The 4570 beats the 8350 by about 50% in that aspect.

    ^^this


  9. So i cant figure out how to fix this or if its a bug. I start a mission and one of 2 things will happen i will just be walking in place and/or i press the "W" key to walk forward and after releasing the W key my guy just keeps walking. he will stop if i switch to a side arm but then wont move at all till i switch back to my primary weapon. if i crouch i walk fine, but as soon as i stand i keep having this issue. anyone know how to fix this? and no pressing V dont work either. Thanks a bunch!

    Are you hear hearing the plug/unplug sound windows making when using a USB device for no reason?


  10. I was wondering if my computer should be actually able to run ArmA 3, or if its just the bottlenecks. I played two scenarios with a lot of AI and stuff happening on in SP, but obviously something less than that amount of AI and I can't even play MP.

    Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 965 Processor, 3400 Mhz, 4 cores

    RAM: 4GB

    OS: Windows 7 Home 32bit

    Graphics Card: AMD Radeon HD 7700

    Resolution: 1680x1050

    Any suggestions on what to upgrade/change? Or should I just wait until things get fixed?

    If you are going to upgrade do not do it just for arma, that being said your best beT will be a ivy/haswell quad core win7-64 8GB of ram, at least a 660 (or equivalent) and a decent SSD.


  11. recommended cpu for this game is , core i7 clocked @ 10ghz.just my 2 cents.

    ps: it is NOT a joke.

    10ghz? WOW very nice , are you running an after market cooler? ;)

    ---------- Post added at 02:03 ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 ----------

    I've currently got a AMD Phenom II 970 X4 processor, running in the 3.5 ghz range according to Dxdiag. 8 Gigs of ram.

    I've also got an ATI HD5770 card. My question is, am I in one of the rare-ish situations where a new GPU would offer better performance increase over a new CPU? The card is stock for my PC (prebuilt because Im a coward) I've been advised by a friend that the Geforce 660 is a very good card overall for the price-conscious.

    Also was advised to get a new case, and was advised the Cooler Master HAF 932 is pretty much totally sufficient for all my needs if GPU heat is a concern. Going from an ATI 5770 to Geforce 660 would be a big heat difference I'm told, and my current case may have troubles.

    CPU use seems to be evenly distributed across all 4 CPU's, and maxes out at 40-45% used at max. Does this mean the CPU is sufficent?

    Any input on the suggested changes would be appreciated!

    look at my sig, the 660 does fine :) but the real punch comes from an I5 or higher, when i am on line (like tonight) playing invade the annex and my view distance set to 3600 on the ground and 6000 in the air I get 25-35 FPS ...not the best but still playable :)


  12. You do something wrong, for me works

    Visual Studio 2005 Redistributable is what i am using and it will let create links on same drive but not other drives, perhaps i missed some thing.

    ---------- Post added at 23:32 ---------- Previous post was at 23:31 ----------

    That's strange, is it giving any errors?

    I've currently got my install spread across a few locations. It's installed on a storage array, but actually sitting on an SSD with my main OS along with several files which I cycle onto ramdisk.

    Once you've got the link shell installed, make a backup your original install (incase something goes wrong it's easier to just use the backup) cut and paste some files to your SSD, ramdisk or wherever you wanted to move them. Now highlight the newly moved files, right click and select "pick link source" Go back to your install directly, right click and select "drop as" and try symbolic link. If that doesn't work, try dropping it in as a junction.

    A junction should work better in a server set up. While they perform generally the same, junctions are processed at the server, while a symbolic links are processed on the client. Remote access into a computer will see junctions, but not symbolic links.

    thnk you will try.


  13. http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-EVO-Series-2-5-Inch-MZ-7TE1T0BW/dp/B00E3W16OU

    Consumer grade SSD's now at sizes of 1TB for under $700. give it some time and the price will lower.

    For the best performance you can use both an SSD and a Ramdisk. Using symbolic links you can move files anywhere and have them appear in a different location. Such as moving high I/O Arma files to a ramdisk and linking them back to the install directory. Allowing you to utilize the speed of your SSD for the game, but some .pbo's which are heavy in reads can be placed on a ramdisk for extra performance. There's no need to have a massive ramdisk, as you can pick and choose individual files which need the speed most. A Ramdisk of only 1 or 2 GB can provide decent room for a few PBO's.

    http://schinagl.priv.at/nt/hardlinkshellext/hardlinkshellext.html

    I just went through that with symbolic links for my server and it wont let you create them except on the same drive i.e i was trying to make one from C: to D: and it does not work .


  14. I wish they made 1TB SSds. Right now Arma 2 takes up 101 GB (109,461,381,663 bytes to be exact), and that isn't the highest game size I have on disk.

    break that piggy bank sunshine :) $635

    http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-EVO-Series-2-5-Inch-MZ-7TE1T0BW/dp/B00E3W16OU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1379459108&sr=8-2&keywords=ssd+1tb

    ---------- Post added at 23:08 ---------- Previous post was at 23:07 ----------

    Hi steve, i have 12gb ram, and measuring system ram usage, when playing arma 3. It gets up to 8GB, so your performance may degrade, because you will have less ram for the system. I did try ramdisc for arma 2 once, this didn't help me anyway, rather i had much worse performance The best solution, would be to buy an SSD, and install windows + arma on it This really helps a lot.

    what else are you doing while playing A3? i have 8GB ram and it nevers uses more than 1.7GB of ram.


  15. Have to agree with you.

    It's all MP these days and with Adversarial MP (PvP) comes cheaters which is why I avoid it like the plague.

    I would love to see another SWAT 4/R6 type game. Especially R6 up until RavenShield because the mission planner was awesome.

    Preordering, Early access (the latest scam perpetrated by the gaming industry), no returns, no demos - these are all reasons to wait and see what the world says before buying.

    I too have been guilty of preordering en masse but I rarely (if ever) do it anymore.

    The gaming industry is full of nefarious types who are constantly finding new ways to part you from your money.

    The early access scam (that Steam has been perpetuating) is something I absolutely will not support.

    While I understand that it would probably be a good thing if human nature was a very different animal, as it stands, all you have to do is come up with 1/10th of a game and then you can sell it on Steam.

    As far as I can tell, the developer is not obligated to release a finished product (someone can correct me if I am wrong about that) or at the very least, adhere to any kind of schedule.

    I detest the direction the game industry is going and at this point I will NOT pre-order,early access, digital deluxe....etc, buying part of a game and then being sold the rest in DLC is BS. I find it amazing that so many people buy into this which just devolves the quality and depth of a lot of future release if all they have to do is repackage the same old game and sell it to you again complete with bugs.

    sadly i think that most of the people who buying into this are impressionable and naive kids who watch the over blown videos and hear all the hype and cant resist the next shiny thing that go's BOOM!


  16. I just did a test with AI groups fighting in Kavala while I was alone on the other side of the map, just north of Selakano. Monitoring the game's CPU and GPU usage.

    First off, without any AI on the map, I got solid 50-60 fps while just running around doing nothing in particular. GPU usage shown at 100%, CPU hovering around 50-55%. (Makes sense, since there wasn't much for it to simulate.)

    Now for the AI:

    With 50 AI fighting miles away in Kavala - btw. that's 10 groups of 5 AI soldiers (5x BLUFOR vs 5x OPFOR), each with a seek & destroy waypoint - I saw my GPU usage drop to ~80% and the framerate dropped accordingly to around 40-50. CPU usage stayed the same, hovering around 50%, never going higher than 58%.

    With double the AI (50v50) I saw my GPU load drop to ~60%, again with a proportional fps drop and again the CPU usage stayed the same as before.

    At 75v75 AI, things became interesting. CPU load stayed consistently between 42% and 50%, GPU hovered between 40% and 50%. The framerate was an almost rock solid 25, even when looking up at the sky.

    Then I added a trigger that allowed the instant removal of all AI on the map. Result: instant framerate recovery.

    You can download the test mission here.

    and what is your performance online in servers over 50 like invade annex and other PvP game modes? minus wasteland/altis life etc


  17. If you read between the lines, he said there's no "simple" solution. Fact of the matter is that a lot of things would need to be rewritten in the engine. We all know this and we all know it's not a simple task, so Maruk pretty much let the cat out of the bag without knowing it. Unless it's a simple solution, it probably won't be fixed. They probably in all honesty, don't really know how to address it or fix it either, and you know, I don't mean that as an insult to them. His statements like we are stupid or wrong for measuring our CPU/GPU utilization by reading the utilization % in the task manager or in MSI afterburner and multicore's not being the answer lead me to believe that it's something that they don't know how to do, or they just don't want to do it for whatever reasons.

    It's not like technology is going to go back on itself either and suddenly produce 10-20 ghz single/dual core cpu's in the next few years. We are moving in to more core's = more power and that's what bugs me the most from his statements. It's like he expects us, as the consumer, to somehow buy hardware that does not exist to fix the problem with their software. They either figure out how to get better performance through better concurrency and parallel programming, or they keep releasing titles that can barely run on any hardware out there. Making statements that Multicore CPU's do nothing for the game when the only thing you can buy anymore are multicore CPU's, and then trying to tell us he wants to run infinite loop simulations on every core to simulate better utilization in order to appease the people having performance problems just smacks of trolling.

    To fix the problems would require an effort like what is being put into DayZ, basically if you run into a system that doesn't fit the design or performance goal of your software, you rewrite it so it does. Like the AI or the physics or the general processing. I'm getting the feeling that isn't something they really want to do with ArmA though.

    I spent yesterday formulating a direct but respectful series of questions for Mr Murak about the performance issues and future of the franchise that i was going to post. then i see a link to his discussion in the nvidea thread and in his first post he puts up a link to which I check out.

    http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/91-real-virtuality-going-multicore

    Real Virtuality Going Multicore from 2009

    Conclusion

    ArmA 2 gets following improvements from running on a dual/multi core:

    improved rendering performance

    smarter AI

    larger scenes possible (higher view distance, more objects in view, more AI units) with little performance drop, especially on multi core machines

    I have alway know there was no magic bullet coming but i was hoping for something, the only thing that can be done is already known and that would be a major rewrite, they did no start it 4 years ago and its obvious they are not going to now.

    As i said before it is what it is and any further discussion is pointless...there is no magic patch coming to unlock your systems potential.

×