Jump to content

ric

Member
  • Content Count

    485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by ric


  1. We have tried that and it would cost some 10-15 % of FPS drop in areas like Kavala. We have compromised on that for sake of game performance and still most of the buildings are destroyable - it just depends on the extent of allowed damage parts :icon_twisted:

    thank you pettka for responding , i fully understand why many things were not included in the game but if TOH causes FPS loss and shooting out shutters causes FPS loss how can you consider this a "future platform"? or do you have some kind of road map you would like to share with us for the evolution of RV4 to 64bit and proper scaling across multiple cores?


  2. I'm a new comer to the ARMA series after seeing all the hype about it. I know my computer can run Arma 2 well because it surpasses the requirements. However I want to buy Arma 3 but I'm unsure of how well Ill be able to play it.

    I have a AMD Phenom 9750 quad-core processor (4cpus) ~2.4ghz I have 8 gbs of RAM My Graphics card is a AMD Radeon HD6670 2gb RAM GDDR3

    I'm also running Vista Home Premium but plan on upgrading that soon.

    So will I be able to run Arma 3 and how well? or would I be better of just buying Arma 2 for a more enjoyable experience?

    Thanks for the help!

    sorry mate but you have a lower end system and A3 performance depends on higher clock speed and newer intel architecture along with an SSD for best performance. even though you have 2gb of ram on your video card it is DDR3 and the power of a 6670 is very low.

    you will most likely be able to play SP on a mix of low and medium settings but i think MP will be out of reach :( unless you play on light missions with a only a handful of people.

    my advice would be a system upgrade if you can, post a price point in here a we will have you spec a system.


  3. @Dslyecxi sorry mate if you wrote 350 pages than you could have taken the time to edit out a few so that it represents the reality of the current release version and not the promise of what is going to be...you could have done that via updates to you guide as items are added to A3.

    now if you are going to post pics of future "additions" then why not add all of the "additions" that are coming...like say ..I44 they have already stated that they are porting there mod to A3, now i believe there is a list of long standing mods for the arma series that you could find and add as they are being worked on as we speak and will become "additions" as you put it.


  4. Gnat;2505063']Step 1 - get permission granted from original author of model.

    Step 2 - get useable file format from author

    Step 3 - come back with a better attitude and maybe we'll help.

    ^^

    you have to show some respect for OTHER peoples work, now if you want to ask some open source people i would try flightgear.org but i am pretty sure you will have to ask there out of policy and respect. :)


  5. It's just showing that the engine doesn't scale very well for demand.

    that's the primary issue for ARMA period. It is incapable of using resource available causing a lot of the performance issues we see. so far from what i have read if the engine was at least in a state of %50 Parallelization you would see a 2x performance increase :)

    here are some links if you want to bore yourself to tears :)

    http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/common-best-known-methods-for-parallel-performance-from-intel-xeon-to-intel-xeon-phi

    https://www.sharcnet.ca/help/index.php/Measuring_Parallel_Scaling_Performance

    http://cs.smith.edu/~thiebaut/transputer/chapter8/chap8-1.html

    http://www.kornelix.com/lbench.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law#Speedup_in_a_sequential_program


  6. Welp.

    Twat.

    Unbelievable.

    How could they even release a game in this shape? I spent 700$ on a new computer solely for the purpose of playing this game, and I cant even play online now.

    I have an fx6300 overclocked with a 7950, and I get 20fps if I'm lucky online.

    Definitely want a refund.

    sorry mate but A3 needs the best single core speed and architecture it can get :( he best advice i can give you is to reduce view and object distance get and SSD (if you dont already have one) and try to play on servers with less than 50 people.

    Now because the game engine is maxed out even the smallest scripting error can cause big problems so it is best to try alot of different servers and game types till you find the sweet spot.


  7. Well in reality, a dedicated server shouldn't use a ton of memory because it has no assets to load like texture's and models. It doesn't have to stream the entire world on demand or anything.

    I think the issue with multiplayer is that you can easily surpass 4gb commit because you are having to simulate EVERYTHING around EVERYBODY in the server as a client. Even in Single Player though on an empty map, you can see that ArmA 3 can easily surpass a 4gb memory footprint.

    i am not sure if i understood you but from what i have read the way A3 works is that it is syncing individual simulations to provide a coherent environment hence why dsyncs can jump hundreds of frames. the funny part was that while i was observing performance i watched the server flogging 10 different PBO. at the same time as if it was playing the game not being a server.

    now hile i was on my CTI server i noted that it was sending out a AVG of 480mbps while i was connected, another player joined and it doubled...which is not a problem if you have the pipe to accommodate the bandwidth need...but imagine the kind of stress put on a server when there a 90 players...that's a LOT of syncing...hence once again it shows that the faster and better the architecture of a single core will give the best results.

    now windies I want you to get a nitrogen pot so we can do the some tests ;)


  8. To conclude: Next time, please read what i write and direct your frustrations towards someone else.

    you right..there are a lot of drama queens are here and perhaps i got you wrong but my frustration goes farther than bis but i will not get into that again, sufficed to say next time i will PM because neither one of us is getting royalty's for this.


  9. RoyaltyinExile mentioned it the development blogs and reveals thread (no time to dig through the 600+ pages :D )

    Anyway they still should have mentioned this before releasing the alpha, because a lot of people bought the game after seeing/watching/reading all the "before Oct 2012" stuff.

    Very true, alot of those videos were posted in the bf3 battle log which caught my eye :) but what makes even less sense is to sell that guide (after official game release) with alot of misinformation ...


  10. They devs have said that anything before Oct 2012 isn't "ArmA 3". The entire game and scope of the game was restarted at that point and all previous artwork, screenshots, videos, quotes and anything else have no bearing on what ArmA3 is now. So any old pictures don't count and neither does the "Tactical Guide" which obviously was created long ago using resources from before the restart of ArmA 3.

    This is certainly disappointing, but there's no sense in complaining about it anymore.

    And yes, uniform changing was dropped long ago.

    thnx for the info, do you have a link to were i might read about this?

    ---------- Post added at 22:44 ---------- Previous post was at 22:39 ----------

    It probably also got scrapped because it didnt have priority anymore but I'm not sure.

    i believe a lot of things got scraped because of stress on the engine like the TOH flight model causing a 10+FPS loss...i was just enjoying invade the annex and started with 45 FPS with core 0 screaming at %95 :( other cores @%25 :( which is fine except that really leaves no overhead. our unit was lifted to the out skirts of town FPS dropped to 19 and i left...pretty much a nightly story :(


  11. I'd suggest that before buying a game, you should check the official website where there is the list of all the vehicles included in the final release.

    lol that's funny MR..People are suppose to watch a bunch of promotional video and screens shots from IN GAME over a 2 year period and then at the last minute they should check to make sure they are in the final release...and of course after the release there selling a manual which shows item that are not actually there...do you not see something wrong here?


  12. I wasn't only talking about addons. For instance, i have seen numerous topics on the following lines: "BI should release all the upcoming DLCs for free, they owe us that", or "the TTP3 should be free of charge for everyone who paid 20$ for a full game", and then of course there is the basic income thread in the oftopic....

    you seem confused Pufu let me help you out.

    A. food water air and shelter are things I NEED! not video games

    B. if you are going to sell me something I DON'T need then you had better make it good.

    C. when selling me the unnecessary you will not engage in false advertising or bate and switch i.e do not show screens shots from in the game for 2 years of items that will not be in final release (F-35, shot guns, sub?).

    D. you will not claim "brand new engine" when in fact it is in fact RV3 modified but still possessing the same crippling performance issues.

    E. you will not claim "building will be enterer able and destroyable" when i can not even shoot the shutters out of the windows.

    I could continue but i am getting tired.... the community is wrong and BIS right mentality that you and you ilk seem tobe mired in is getting old.

    I personal don't want anything free....I put thousands in to my PC hardware so $60 plus coming DLC are meaningless to me...what i do want was BIS to handle and respect there bread and butter (us) and take issues according to priority i.e the core of the RV engine which is the biggest problem for A3.

    so far what we have seen is more stress put in the performance problem riddled RV3 , underwater environment cut n paste from VBS2, generic reuse of turrets and MG on vehicles, no campaign, almost no SP missions , no dedicated server software...etc

    PuFu why dont you ask your self how many of the problems for A3 revolve around the fact that it cannot use are hardware properly...then ask yourself how long they have know this.


  13. Well, think what you like.

    As for where the screenshots were taken from, who's not to say that they're from TKOH with Altis ported to it?

    Also, I think one reason why shotguns aren't implemented is because they cannot be reloaded the way they are supposed to be (individual shells instead of magazines). The KSG-12 also has the dual magazines. People would be crying if it were ingame currently because these two things do not work presently in the engine, the same way people cry about the gun not being in. No difference as far as BI is concerned, people cry.

    Again, there are more worthwhile things to cry about, and they are not as numerous (nontheless important) as people make it attempt to appear.

    well, there are screens, merkava and hunter are on opfor side for example. But like i said, there is nothing which confirms, there should be f-35 in game. :P

    @NeuroFunker another way to look at is called "bait and switch"

    @instagoat it is not one thing that people are angry about its the culmination of many....performance,content,campaign, generic reuses of turrets,guns,MG's...etc and speaking of "crying" if you want to "cry" about something "cry" about the MOST important issue in A3 which is performance...but let me warn it will get you NO WHERE!


  14. The Guide is pretty clear about not representing vanilla Arma 3. Many of the items shown in it are parts of mods, in fact, and that is mentioned all the time. The ttp was also very likely written and provided with screenshots way before the data lock. None of the nato soldiers have flags, the iranians have the scrubbed flags instead of the CSAT hexagons, and quite a few weapons shown were changed during development.

    This is very similar to the OFP manual back in 2001, which showed screenshots from pre-beta builds even (such as the T-72 with the commander's machinegun" and all vehicles had different markings than in the final version. Nobody whined and complained then, at least not so loudly. If this is BI's crime, putting pictures of things that were changed during development into a book that's an explicit cooperation between community members and company, then Arma 3 really doesn't have problems.

    Unfortunately it has, so instead of concentrating on arguably outdated screenshot material, maybe be vocal about interesting things, like the bodyarmor or the visuals for tank insides.

    it is is still unprofessional to release a guide with erroneous information leading to unneeded confusion.

    ---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

    except thus screes, is there any confirmed information, that F-35B should have been in arma 3?

    those shot are taken FROM the game :)


  15. 2 year old development screenshots do not represent the final game. That's the standard disclaimer with very Dev video and screenshot regardless of the game.

    POI can't find anywhere in its Steam page or official website advertising anything that isn't included in the release.

    And thats ok? showing screen shots from your upcoming game with a F-35 and the all of a sudden remove it...it was already in the game...how many of those screen shots are in the game? (minus the one with the sub)

    no matter how you want to justify it it is still being deceptive...

    ---------- Post added at 19:47 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

    There are game files for everything you listed minus the F-35 (which has been confirmed as a placeholder). ArmA 3 "releasing" was pretty bs since it really wasnt done yet, but I'm confident that all the things listed will be in the game at some point. Just be patient...

    patient? that shot is over 2 years old.... plus you missed the fact there is a screen shot with a full size sub behind the diver :)


  16. About f35, it has been discussed a ton! Show me where BIS promised F-35 for arma 3, and i'll delete my account.

    this often referred to as "false advertising" these are shots from 2 years ago. scroll to the bottom

    http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/07/e3-2011-arma-3-screenshots-deployed/

    ---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

    I have briefly looked through it. Although it does state that mods are in use, and the guide should not reflect the original version of Arma 3, why is Bohemia Interactive pushing it so hard?

    sorry mate that question was directed at FRL MYKE


  17. Well, the guide is quite misleading. It has Bohemia's logo on it, it even states within the guide that "TTP3 is an official product of Bohemia Interactive". It's a nice guide, but Bohemia Interactive definitely should not be pushing it so hard when it contains a lot of items that aren't actually in the game.

    Myke;2504567']Wrong. It is released by Dsylexci' date=' included to the Game by BIS. Not quite the same.[/quote']

    have you even read the guide?


  18. SERVER SPECS

    Processor:

    Quad Core Intel Xeon X3220, 4 x 2.50GHz

    RAM:

    8GB ECC 667MHz Ram

    Network:

    Dedicated full duplex 100Mbit

    Average / Max Player Count:

    15 / 36

    Min / Max server FPS:

    5 / 35

    Mission Used:

    Altis Insurgency

    Mods Used:

    @CBA_A3, @JayArma3Lib, @ACRE, @AMS (to monitor server stats)

    CONFIG

    MaxMsgSend=1024;
    MaxSizeGuaranteed=1024;
    MaxSizeNonguaranteed=64;
    MinErrorToSend=0.0040000002;
    maxCustomFileSize=0;
    
    MinBandwidth=7864320;		// 512kbps 	x 	avg. 15 players (into bps)
    MaxBandwidth=18874368;		// 512kbps 	x 		 36 players (into bps)

    STATISTICS

    Initial server start with 4 players

    Server FPS: 32

    CPU: 10%

    I/O: 84kbps / 449 kbps

    Hitting a town with 8 players

    Server FPS: 15

    CPU: 22%

    I/O: 128kbps / 841 kbps

    21 players online

    Server FPS: < 5

    CPU: 27%

    I/O: 145kbps / 2056 kbps

    Server idling after running for a few hours (no players connected)

    Server FPS: 11

    CPU: 28% (why?)

    Memory usage peaks to about 1.77GB.

    At server start the average server FPS is 35. As soon as we hit a town (and the AI spawn), the server FPS drops to 15 (with 8 players connected). With 21 players online, the FPS drops to < 5 FPS.

    What confuses me the most is why the server is running at 11 FPS and using 28% of the CPU when just idling. There should be no AI (since AI despawn when no players are present), so what is it calculating?

    I've read this guide but the changes made appear to make little difference.

    It seems clear that the server isn't being limited by hardware since its barely using the resources it has available, which leads me to believe either the network is bottle-necking or Arma 3 isn't taking advantage of the server's resources.

    Is this the expected frame rate/results for a server with these specs? What framerates do other server administrators experience?

    try running altis but completely empty , have some friends joining you and enter one of the bigger towns and measure your performance then.

    p.s the performance of A3 is based on core 0 so the higher the clock/architecture the better the performance

    which means those CPU% are misleading as that is an AVG across the cores meaning core 0 is probably close to running at %100 while the other 3 are doing ver y little hence the performance wall you are hitting.

    have a look at core 0 when performance starts to tank.


  19. It's me in a windowed client measuring my memory usage while I'm connected to a server. I don't have a way to measure server performance right now, though I would be very interested in seeing the memory usage of the dedicated server.

    i was running a CTI mission on my ded server, the usage started out at 400MB and by the time the FPS dropped into the teens with just me on the server after and hour the total commit of RAM was 830MB give or take a meg


  20. CHykis;2503851']Nope. Just did it. I have 8 GB ram. Before starting ArmA - 1' date='64 GB used (system, cash). "flying around altis with tons of units and objects and AI" - 3,6 GB. Not a single mb more[/quote']

    ditto, A3 never uses more than 1.7GB whether it s on my server or gaming rig.

    ---------- Post added at 16:18 ---------- Previous post was at 16:04 ----------

    quick question Dwarden, how can another milsim based off of RV3 use 64bit addressing and RV4 cant?


  21. Hey folks any light you can shed on this for me will be much appreciated I am currently getting between 7 online and 25 offline fps running a rig with:

    AMD FX 8150 8core 3.61GHz

    16GB of RAM

    AMD Radeon HD 7800 aprox memory is reading at 4GB but its a 1GB card (supposedly overclocked by the company who supplied it)

    Resolution 1920 x 1080

    Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit

    I have tried turning down the settings in display from very high to very low with a possible 2 fps increase. It's making the game completely unplayable online and only just playable offline. Any suggestions are more than welcome I'm at my wits end here trying to get it to work?

    sorry mate but the game is dependent on the power of core 0 , your best bet right now is to overclock as far as you can go and get an SSD.

    ---------- Post added at 01:44 ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 ----------

    I'm just horribly disappointed. I was so extremely hyped for this game and couldn't wait to play it. Alpha and beta were bad, I couldn't get any sort of playable FPS in multiplayer. So I waited and hoped it would be improved a lot but here we are at release and it isn't any better at all.

    Using a GTX 560Ti, i5-2500k@4.2GHz and 8gb of ram I can't even reach 30 FPS in multiplayer at the lowest settings. A waste of $32 isn't very cool, but it's nothing in comparison to the massive disappointment of not being able to play this game.

    Wwhat servers are you playing on? wasteland? have you tried turning down your object and view distance?

×