***ArmA 3 Thread***

Okay thanks guys, made me feel a bit more confident about performance :)

Hopefully most of the rest of this should DL tonight, so I might be able to play tomorrow, if not then Saturday :D
 
Mr Krugga said:
Having a game on an SSD doesn't make a difference to performance (unless your HDD is heavily fragmented). You will more than likely experience shorter loading times, though, which is always a bonus.
Click to expand...

For some, less microstutter and dips in performance when loading/unloading newer or old objects and textures/other resources.
Which in turn takes a hit on FPS.
 
TheMeekon said:
All that is stored in memory.....
Click to expand...

No, it's stored on a hard drive.
It transfers when needed, it can't (or most can't) have everything at full lod loaded. There's a limit on object distance compared to terrain too.
Someone ran a test on a 7200/10k/SSD and there are notable differences post loading, but that's all on a private forum for the ARMA community I'm in.

Edit: Unless you're arguing semantics then what's the point discussing it, because yes, it's stored on a HD then transfered to the memory for quicker loading but it won't store everything outside of your immediate game area, except shared items but even then it seems to want to purge and reload them.
 
Last edited:
ChrisJSY said:
No, it's stored on a hard drive.
It transfers when needed, it can't (or most can't) have everything at full lod loaded. There's a limit on object distance compared to terrain too.
Someone ran a test on a 7200/10k/SSD and there are notable differences post loading, but that's all on a private forum for the ARMA community I'm in.
Click to expand...

It's still loaded to RAM before the room bound is turned on. It shouldn't affect the frame rate in any way as HD's have never been the bottle neck in the past.

Streaming from a disk is another matter. I worked on a recent sandbox game as the getting the data off the disk fast enough caused enough problems.
 
TheMeekon said:
Streaming from a disk is another matter. I worked on a recent sandbox game as the getting the data off the disk fast enough caused enough problems.
Click to expand...

Back to point one, what happens when it struggles? You take performance hits, which are noted in dips and freezes of varying lengths, which in turn hurt FPS.

So bam, that was a long way around to get to the same result.
 
ChrisJSY said:
Back to point one, what happens when it struggles? You take performance hits, which are noted in dips and freezes of varying lengths, which in turn hurt FPS.

So bam, that was a long way around to get to the same result.
Click to expand...

Struggles, you think the amount of data it's streaming is anywhere near it's bandwidth limits?

Games streaming off a disc budgets are at about 16mb per room current gen.
 
ChrisJSY said:
It's not simply about raw transfer speed, but access time to prevent the above.
http://i.imgur.com/fjMl8.jpg That's during the benchmark and the video below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y_NVgJooWOQ

So short answer, yeah it helps.

Those were done around release date and the last vid is more recent after many patches and a system upgrade even further, he had other videos from way back doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

Wowzers, well I never experienced any difference apart from the load time. I've got it on my HDD right now, might switch it back and see.
 
But it's obviously all going to be subjective, people have issue with performance with amazing beasts of machines, issues can arise anywhere. But from what I've seen yeah, an SSD can help :)
 
Mr Krugga said:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24524727&postcount=2576

I'm playing on Ultra with MSAA reduced to 4x, post-process AA, bloom and blur disabled.
Click to expand...

That's messed up :(
I know terrain can be a big hit on ultra, try standard (low will just remove bushes etc which is horrible). Clouds virtually look no different from low to ultra.
Try SSAO off, it personally boosts my fps by like 15-20 at times, I don't care much for the very, very slightly shadows around objects.

View distance/object is a big hit, for infantry I aim around 1.5k but when I know I'll be flying a while I go 3-4k. There's zero need to max it out.
 
I've noticed (at least in the alpha) that lowering the Picture In Picture setting increased fps.

Also having clouds on high and above will hammer fps. They look good but they do cost a fair bit.
 
None of your suggestions solve the main problem with ARMA games, that is, the old Operation Flashpoint engine is still largely CPU-limited (to the point where I can enable/disable 8xMSAA without seeing any significant difference in performance) whilst only using two cores fairly efficiently. They've promised us big changes when it comes to utilisation of resources by the engine (heck, I even remember someone mentioning a new engine before Alpha was out) and yet it's still the same 12 year old Real Virtuality engine, albeit very impressive on the graphical side, it chokes in more intensive scenarios and offers a very dated AI model.

And before any of you mention "herp derp, it's still in beta", well, I don't remember ARMA games ever making a giant leap from Beta to RC, but I'd like to be positively surprised.
 
Xcept1 said:
I've noticed (at least in the alpha) that lowering the Picture In Picture setting increased fps.

Also having clouds on high and above will hammer fps. They look good but they do cost a fair bit.
Click to expand...

PIP at high will kill your FPS, set it at medium..

Clouds shouldn't affect your fps Melbo..

Got to agree with Krugga here.

Now was the perfect time to build a new engine, or even release a 64bit version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom