zhrooms

Is the mod broken now? Got a fresh ArmA 3 Beta install, along with ArmA 2 and OA, tried both with and without PlaywithSIX, I get an error when spawning saying config.bin/something something, and it sends me back to the editor instead of spawning. Not compatible with the latest ArmA 3 Beta?

Ye, as you can see in the chart in the Original Post, a 3570k at 3.8GHz had 35 FPS and overclocked to 4.8GHz it had 44 FPS, that's a 9 FPS increase (25.7%), which is a a damn lot. Speaking of just that, Intel Haswell releases in less then a month, and early tests on the 4770k suggests that 6.0GHz is actually possible on water without much trouble at all, an early test got out a few days ago from Asia, in which in they got the 4770k to 5.0GHz on Air on the first try, 50x100 = 5000MHz on as low as only 1.1v, will be very interesting to see more reviewers getting their hands on them. So all in all it seems Haswell has much better overclocking than Ivy Bridge (3570k/3770k), so I'm predicting a lot of people who play ArmA will buy Haswell because of the overclocking potential, a 4770k €275 at 5.5GHz will no doubt outperform a 3930k €450 at 5.0GHz, If 3.8GHz is 35 FPS and 4.8GHz is 44 FPS, from a 1 GHz increase, you would assume at 5.8GHz you would increase another 9 FPS to 53 FPS! Yes please!

It varies too much (and) to little, really no point other then what I explained on the second page of this thread. Anyway to show what I mean by GPU is not very important I took some pictures demonstrating the actual impact of the graphics card and that you really do need two video cards to be able to max it out. DaRkL3AD3R really has no clue what he's talking about.. (DayZ Mod View Distance 1500/1060, Everything Highest except Post Processing Quality) _____________________________________ One GPU in Town, GPU Settings Turned Off http://i.imgur.com/dMSXoW0.jpg One GPU in Town, GPU Settings Turned On http://i.imgur.com/Wc3ooi0.jpg Conclusion: No difference in FPS, CPU is bottlenecking GPU Two GPU's in Town, GPU Settings Turned Off http://i.imgur.com/Ws9Z5yX.jpg Two GPU's in Town, GPU Settings Turned On http://i.imgur.com/LdF9LIn.jpg Conclusion: Adding another GPU makes no difference in FPS, CPU is bottlenecking GPU's So what can we take from this? A used GTX 580 1.5GB that cost around €90 can literally max out ArmA 3 Alpha.. or wait a moment.. that's just the Heavy CPU Town? What about everywhere else on the island? _____________________________________ One GPU in Forest, GPU Settings Turned Off http://i.imgur.com/zbvMUDp.jpg One GPU in Forest, GPU Settings Turned On http://i.imgur.com/EDStWYT.jpg Conclusion: Huge difference in FPS, GPU is not powerful enough to push 60 FPS, and SSAO isn't even turned on which would bring it down even further Two GPU's in Forest, GPU Settings Turned Off http://i.imgur.com/zFqHkSH.jpg Two GPU's in Forest, GPU Settings Turned On http://i.imgur.com/sftbeS7.jpg Conclusion: Double the GPU, Double the FPS, In other words very good GPU scaling, still not powerful enough to deliver 109 FPS which is the CPU limit So what can we take from this? In situations where the CPU is not under heavy load, one GPU won't be able to max out the ArmA 3 Alpha, so SLI/CF is very helpful in that regard, you do not loose any performance by enabling SLI or CF, you only gain, but only in situations where the CPU is not under heavy load, which is pretty much everywhere outside Towns or in Heavy AI situations. _____________________________________ So, GPU is not very important at all, when I used one GPU in the Forest that was with every GPU setting turned up Highest except Post Processing Quality, because it doesn't necessarily make the game look better at all and has a huge performance strain on the GPU for almost no visual effect, but if I had turned down the Anti-Aliasing effects and Shadows I should have been able to push 60 FPS in the Forest with One GPU, so SLI/CF is only good when you really want to play on literally highest (maxed out AA & Post Processing or higher resolutions than 1080p) But you can clearly see the CPU has a much bigger impact, buying a i5 3570k for €175 and a GTX Titan GPU for €900 (Total €1075) would not get you 60 FPS in Towns, you would actually get considerably more FPS in general with a i7 3930k for €450 and a GTX 660 2GB GPU for €175 (Total €625) If I would recommend a computer to a person that wants to max out ArmA 3 Beta/Final I would probably recommend a Haswell Intel Core i5 4570k 4 Core 6MB, overclock that bad boy to 5.0GHz with 4x4GB 2400MHz Memory and maybe 2x GTX 660 2GB with aftermarket coolers for extra overclocking, that setup would easily get an average of 80 FPS in ArmA 3 and BF3 at highest settings, no doubt, for a much smaller cost than for example a 3930k and a GTX Titan that would cost twice as much but only deliver 15-25% more FPS @JumpingHubert This as impressive?

Wow, what you just said is completely false and wrong, please never reply in any hardware related thread ever again.

What the hell is it that you don't understand? The whole point is to show different CPU's so people understand what differences speed and cores do in the game, for example if they are thinking of upgrading they need to know if it will even make any difference to them or not, I really have no clue what you think I did this for. And no, memory speed doesn't have any impact on performance (Under Heavy CPU load) as you can clearly see in the picture, so why are you rambling on about it? Why the hell would you compare one architecture to another? That wouldn't apply to any real situation, it would just provide useless data, literally waste of time. And the architecture differences at the same speed is just like with most games, pretty much non existent, if you compare 3770k vs 4770k at the same speed it will probably be 0 to 1 FPS increase, that magic ~10% performance increase that Haswell promises over Ivy Bridge doesn't apply to games, but to Benchmarks and heavy CPU applications. A 3770k is just as good as a 4770k in ArmA 3 at the same speed. It doesn't matter if you use a video card from 2007 or from 2013, it will still not use 100% when the CPU is under enough pressure, and that can easily happen, all you have to do is throw in a lot of AI or increase View Distance. So it has nothing to do with how "advanced" your GPU is in any way. Basically the entire problem with people whining about it not being CPU optimized is because Bohemia never set any rules, they gave people the option to see 12.000 Meters with full detail, that was a mistake, because people have no clue what the engine or settings even does, so when they see the limit is 12.000, then if they have the latest CPU on the market, they think they can easily manage 1 third of those 12.000 which is 4.000 View and Object Detail Distance, and of course it doesn't work, they get 10 FPS and they go whine on forums that the game is badly optimized, a fun fact about Chernarus vs Battlefield 3, is that in the Battlefield 3 Multiplayer you only have a MAXIMUM of 500 trees at any given time on any map, but in Chernarus when you are in the heavy forests down south east, with ONLY 1500 View Distance and 1060 Object Distance, that is DayZ Mod locked settings, you see around ~2500 trees at the same time, that's 5 times as many trees on the same spot then BF3, imagine if you put 2500 trees in a Battlefield 3 MP 64 Player Map.. everybody would go down from 60 to 30 FPS and start complaining that it wouldn't be playable. So that was a "some what kinda ish" mistake by Bohemia, NOT locking it at like 1000 or even 500, if they had done that everyone would have 60 FPS, and never complain, oh wait, what people would be complaining about instead would be that you can only see five hundred/a thousand meters, so.. people would still complain and whine, I guess that's in peoples nature, never being satisfied. Anyway, I am actually very impressed by what the engine can deliver, in Chernarus on the ArmA 3 Alpha engine I can push 1500 View and Object Distance with around 1500 Trees at highest settings with 60 FPS stable, how can anyone say that's "badly optimized", really?

Alright, since the answer hasn't been given in over 20 replies.. The reason for this is because when you zoom in your field of view decreases dramatically, the CPU hardly has to work because it only needs to draw up a couple of bushes and trees at the location you're aiming at, so that gives the GPU a lot of free room to work in, and it goes up in 100% usage because "it can". That's why you need to give it rules! When you are not zoomed in, the CPU has to render all the terrain, trees, bushes and objects, it's literally working as hard as it can, so much that the GPU has almost no room to work with, so it sits in the corner and eating a sandwich. But when you look through that Scope (Zoom), the CPU only has to render the small terrain area you're looking at, only has to draw up 10 bushes instead of 200, so the CPU is now sitting at the table eating a sandwich, and the GPU is now working because the CPU is now taking a break, so the GPU can now do whatever it wants, the CPU is in the corner eating a sandwich so the GPU tries it hardest to give you a lot of FPS, it works until it literally is drowning of sweat and tears, it's now giving you up to let's say 150 FPS because nobody is telling him anything else, he is working with one rule: "Produce FPS". Here is where YOU come in, since the GPU is now producing 150 FPS looking through the Scope, your GPU's temperature goes up since it's working so hard, but you don't need 150 FPS do you? That's why you tell the GPU, you only need to produce 60 FPS, because that's what I want, not a single more FPS. Then when the GPU is producing 60 FPS, he slows down his working, and can relax, he is in no hurry at all, 60 FPS is easy. Now how do you do that? Using a "FPS Limiter", modifying video card drivers (Rules) in for example Nvidia Inspector (Google it), you tell your graphics card that you don't want it to produce more than 60 Frames Per Second. Then it won't do it. Your GPU will now only be at 30% usage when looking through the Scope (Zoom) and keep a cool 50c instead of almost 100c. This is very common in almost all games today, they don't have any built in FPS limiter, maybe at 200 FPS but that's still way to much, I remember when Starcraft 2 was released, the Main Menu didn't have any FPS limiter, so all the video cards were in 100% usage and got very very hot because they were producing 400 FPS, some cards even broke in badly ventilated cases. The only time you want 100% GPU Usage is when you DON'T have 60 FPS, then it's only good, but as soon as you go over 60 FPS the extra performance is Wasted, that's why it's really stupid to buy like 2x GTX Titan 6GB for playing Call of Duty and World of Warcraft for example, because the graphics cards will only be used 15% each when producing 60 FPS, and a GTX 660 2GB can produce 60 FPS in Call of Duty, so that means a Graphics Card for €200 delivers the exact same performance as two graphics cards for €2000 in CoD. ArmA 3 is VERY CPU dependent, if you have one HD7970 for example, and you have 50 FPS and the card is at 90% Usage, you would not gain anything by upgrading or overclocking, as long as your GPU is not at literally 99-100% usage, your CPU is bottlenecking it. So if you have 50 FPS at 90% Usage with one HD7970, and went and bought another HD7970, so you now have TWO cards, you would still only have 50 FPS and each card would be using 45% each instead of one card on 90%, they take care of half the frames each, one card does 25 and the other 25, instead of one that takes all 50. Graphics Cards are not very important at all in ArmA, a GTX660 2GB €175 can run the game almost as good as a GTX680 €400 if you don't want/need to push Anti-Aliasing and such, there are very few options in ArmA 3 Alpha that actually depends on the GPU, the biggest ones of them are Anti-Aliasing, Post Processing Anti Aliasing like FXAA, SMAA, Alpha-to-Coverage and Post Processing effects such as Bloom, Motion Blur and SSAO, but all those settings have a VERY small visual effect, settings like Object Quality and Terrain Quality has a huge difference on the visuals, and are purely dependent on CPU, not GPU. So a GTX660 can provide almost the same visuals as a GTX680 for half the price. Putting those €200 on the CPU and Aftermarket Cooling for Overclocking would provide a MUCH bigger visual difference. http://i.imgur.com/J6kusgc.gif >100KB

Did you even look at it? How can you say it's not a CPU Comparison with different speeds and cores when you have it in front of you? It's like you're denying you have a computer monitor in front of you. And testing the different memory speed is clearly important, since it shows it doesn't give any performance increase at all when the CPU is under heavy load. Truth? Noting you said has any truth behind it, you would not get a single more FPS with a better graphics card, because your CPU would be bottlenecking it, your GPU is probably not even at 75% usage, so if you added a GTX Titan the GPU usage would go down instead of up since it's already delivering what it can at a lower usage since it's more powerful. But sure go ahead and buy 3x Titan and enjoy your "solid 50 FPS". And this was tested in an earlier Alpha version when the Helicopter Showcase wasn't optimized, hence the lower FPS, but would pretty much deliver the same results now but maybe 10 higher FPS in every test. Also a Higher View Distance and Lower Object Distance looks horrible, popping up trees and objects everywhere.

I'm guessing it's mostly because of the trees, there are at least two or even three times as many trees inland than there are on the island Utes, they're all rendered by the CPU so if you would turn down the Object Distance to 500 meters on Utes and do the same at maybe Veresnik below Vybor, you should get a similar FPS.

I did As said, it's during the Helicopter Showcase, it uses a lot of AI hence the 48 FPS average over an entire minute, remember this is just an Alpha so the AI part of the game will probably get optimized further until the release of the game. Pretty much the same as a 3770k at 3.8GHz would do, the same 8MB cache size and amount of cores/threads, tho a 3770k should perform roughly about 15% faster at the same speed because of the new architecture, so if a i7 920 would get 60 FPS at 4.0GHz a 3770k would perhaps get around 65-70 FPS at the same speed. The only reason you would want to upgrade your i7 920 is because of the extra overclocking potential, a i7 920 will be maxed out for the average overclocker at around 4.2GHz while a 3570k can go up to 4.6-4.7GHz. It does not use them, as you say you can force the game to use the extra threads, but at no performance gain at all, instead of using the first Core 100%, you will make it use 50% of the first Core and 50% of the Extra Thread, so it doesn't provide any extra performance what so ever. Core #1: 80% Core #2: 50% Core #3: 50% Core #4: 50% CPU Usage: ~60% With HT Enabled Core #1: 40% Core #2: 40% (Extra Thread) Core #3: 25% Core #4: 25% (Extra Thread) Core #5: 25% Core #6: 25% (Extra Thread) Core #7: 25% Core #8: 25% (Extra Thread) CPU Usage: ~30% Twice as many threads, half as much CPU usage: 0% performance difference

Hi, this is a teaser for a Tweak Guide I'm currently working on, everything is tested on a 3930k but turned off cores and lowered the speed to simulate other CPU's, even if it's not entirely accurate it's close and you should get a good sense of how big of a difference the speed and amount of cores actually make. One thing I've not been able to try are 8 real cores, if anyone has access to a real 8 core CPU and could test ArmA 3 Alpha too see if it actually uses all 8 cores that would be mighty kind. In this particular chart the CPU is heavily used, so much that GPU and memory overclocking make no difference, but in other tests without heavy AI the memory overclocking actually helps more than you would expect, going from 60 to 65 FPS when increasing from 1600MHz to 2500MHz, that's about ~10% FPS. Also GPU overclocking makes a noticeable difference in heavy GPU situations like when for example enabling Post Processing Effects such as FXAA/SMAA/ATOC and SSAO. Thanks, www.zhrooms.com Link: http://i.imgur.com/5bGlIjW.png Edit: Quoting a post I made on the forth page that people can find useful and maybe miss,

That's one of the biggest problems with ArmA, the lack of settings and the settings don't need 6 different stages like Very Low all the way to Very High, it could be made so much simpler very easy. And description when hovering above a setting so you know what it does.

I wouldn't say "Fixed: Picture-in-Picture of ships and SDV drastically decreased framerate" is fixed, still drops from 120 to 80 FPS (1/3) in the Ships, 1/3 is just way to high to be viable in the long run, the obvious thing to do is to turn it off, and put those extra fps to use in some other settings since PIP is rarely used.

Can someone please explain how to get this shit working with some steps? Been trying for an hour, the "helpful installation wiki" literally didn't say anything helpful at all. Shame on the mod creator for not doing a proper installation guide what good is it if people can't use it? Not just me having problems. Edit: Finally got it working after 1.5 hours (I'm sure there are other ways than my way, but this is how I did it) 1. Follow the Installation Guide, Step 1 to 6 https://dev-heaven.net/projects/all-in-arma/wiki 2. Download and Install PlaywithSIX 3. In PlaywithSIX select ARMA 3 Alpha and press settings 4. In the Startup Parameters field put (everything after : that includes the "): "-mod=C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Arma 2;C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead;C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead\Expansion;C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Arma 3;@allinarma" "-world=empty" -nosplash 5. Start the Game by pressing Launch in PlaywithSIX Modify the Startup Parameters if you desire other games or have a different installation path Took me like 2min to write that..

Really looking forward to it!

Edit: Dead Link