rickyriot

I have an overclocked (@4.2Gz) Octacore 8320 and the game only uses one core of that and never more than 80% of that core. My FPS is similar to Alldaypk's.

Apologies for the small image, it was the only resolution I could find, but while reading another story about a town in Northern Kazakhstan I thought the picture of the place looked familiar. Come on, admit it, you are already planning to press V to get over that wooden fence.

I think I've only ever needed it once and in the mod not SA. It's more that you can't do it, rather than I need to do it.

I am? News to me. Insecure much?

I didn't hear the person saying they were unconscious the first time round and to me (again on first viewing) it looks like he was holding a pistol. That obviously changes my summation somewhat. Oh, I don't know, I think it's entirely fair. If you use arcade mode and still make a mess of a 2 on 1 situation then it's entirely right that he deserves to die.

-- snip -- Edit: Clearly what I wrote here was bullshit. Shame, as it was well crafted and reasoned but bullshit it was none the less.

You Americans know how to party! Seriously though, was that loaded or unloaded? The traditional British Army large vehicle is called a "4-tonner" (a Bedford MK) and when unloaded, in neutral and on a flat surface should be pushable by 4 people. That'll be 4 army trained people. Maybe it's just that you need 20 Americans for 4 Brits, that seems like a fair ratio.. ;) Now to be fair the V3S in the game is, I think, about 5 tonnes and being built in Eastern Europe is bound to be made out of wrought iron so would literally feel like pushing a tank. Anyway, all that aside I reckon that as a task pushing a vehicle should be a many person task, unless it's downhill when all you'd do is put it into neutral and let go of the handbrake. Without the engine running you'd have fun stopping it mind.

I felt SA passed the mod a few months back. SA is only going to get better while the mod peaked some time ago. It's getting harder and harder to find decent and populated mod servers.

Oooh, I do like a bit of Betrand Russell, although that quote is out of context here. Russell was discussing it on a national not a personal level. However, allow me to counter it with another Russell quote... "Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear."

Out of interest rather than thinking of things that the lone-wolf style would be disadvantaged by, what tasks do you think that should be done by more than 1 person? Just now it's blood bagging and saline drip which I think is wrong. You should be able to do that yourself. After all millions of junkies have shown you don't need any particular skill to put a needle in your arm alone. That leaves nothing else. However I would like to see some things introduced, even though that would act as a negative to the way I play the game. For example these things.. The ability to push vehicles You have run out of petrol but there is a gas station nearby. It's all down to physics of course, but anyone who has tried to push anything the size of a V3S will know that unless you are on a fairly decent hill you aren't going anywhere. It should take several people to push a large vehicle. Large storage that needs two people to carry These are not introduced yet, but I would like to see them introduced. A large wooden crate that can be lockable. It would allow for storage inside bases or alternatively can be buried (so long as the player has a shovel). However it takes two people to carry the crate (or to life it out of a buried position). Tents are nice and all but the idea they are large storage is more a legacy from the mod. Certain base building tasks We don't know what is going on with this so it's all conjecture. However I think that single players should be able to build bases or barricade already existing buildings. On the flip side a single person wouldn't (well not without a block and tackle - which opens up the option of that being craftable) be able to lift large joists for the more complicated or larger bases. Anyone else want to add in specific tasks that shouldn't be possible with one player alone?

If you are getting an extra 5-7 FPS from a RAM disk (RD) then your hard drive must run on coal.

I play lone wolf, but I accept the limitations of that. I am considerably more likely to be attacked and if I am I have less chance of surviving it, I can't share out resources so whatever I can fit in my inventory is it and I leave stuff behind, I also don't have the niceties of being able to apply blood bags or saline drips. These are of course negatives, but then they are balanced out by the positives of not having to listen to someone droning on about sh*t all the time. The reason I don't play in a group is, quite frankly, I don't like people. As I say, I accept the downsides of a lone wolf existence but then to me it has those positives too. I have no issues with certain tasks taking more than one person to achieve so long as it's realistic (just for argument's sake, like lifting something that is too heavy for one person). It would be nice to be able to apply a saline drip or blood bag to yourself (not that I am ever really in need of one, I'm either full health or dead in most cases) as that seems like something a single person could do without help.

There are numerous RAM disks out there, you don't need to pay for one. I've tried it for both the mod and the SA, SA is considerably more awkward to configure as you are dicking about with steam files while the mod were just installed normally. Ultimately though, it doesn't improve your frame rate. It will however make your game load quicker and if you suffer from stutters as assets load in from a physical hard disk then it should even them out. You should be looking to shift somewhere around 7Gb worth of files across to it, so in that sense it's probably best if you are working with a machine that has 12 - 16Gb of memory installed (I would recommend the latter, but as that is the memory I have I've never tried it with 12. Technically it *should* work although you'll be cutting it close). Obviously for us paupers who don't have an SSD it's nice to see the game pop up in a matter of seconds compared to the somewhat chunky loading times from a platter drive but it is a lot of faffing about for what I would consider a limited return.

I have issues with this comment. Not that it's inherently wrong. I've already stated you get what you pay for and for Intel you pay considerably more. I would also question the nVidia/AMD gpu argument but that can be much of a muchness, However, the main problem I have is that in relation the DayZ the game is running poorly on both chipsets so to dismiss people who are defending their use of an AMD chip as "fanboys" then to wave the Intel flag so prominently is ignoring the elephant in the room to complain about the choice of curtains. As I say, I don't disagree with your sentiments as in general, but specifically in this context they aren't quite as relevant.

Three words; "time", "of", "year"

From the documentation I've read, it's 4. Even then it makes no difference, only one core is used.

Exactly, which is why some are idiots for slagging off AMD when it's clear the game is the problem not the chip.

When I run afterburner neither my graphics card nor my CPU (or at least the one core of it) ever get maxed out. Not entirely too sure why that is however I would be more bothered if it was every game, but it's pretty much just DayZ. FC4 is stuttering but it's got lots of problems on every CPU.

I like the (time) bell and I'm not sure if people should be allowed to trigger it. I would prefer the ability to ring the bell in churches (after all they should have some use) with a nice touch being that you need to have a rope in your hand to do it.

I am running it at 1600x900 and get nowhere near that FPS. My other kit is as I say a fairly sluggish 7770 although I have 16Gb 1333Mhz DDR3 memeory.

What resolutions are they running that on? My 8320 is not that far off the 8350, although I will admit I am hampered by an ageing (but not dreadful) 7770.

I have the -malloc=system -cpuCount=4 -exThreads=7 (AMD 8 Core) command line in steam so you'd hope it would pick up the other cores, but it just doesn't. From the screenshots I believe your assumption (and it's mine too) that DayZ only ever runs on the one core with Windows using the others.

While not technically wrong, the analogy is similar to saying if you want faster speeds in your car, remove the seats. Yes, it would increase the speed, but it's not the answer. The answer is that the game has the rendering engine addressed then the game as a whole is optimised (both client and server). However this I do agree with. Although the more the OP posts, the more I question whether they are entirely genuine.

Anyone who goes straight to the "Don't buy AMD" option in these discussions is a bit daft. Yes, Intel is the better performer, but also yes it is considerably more expensive. Ultimately my 8320 can run AAA titles because these games are optimised, DayZ is not and even those using an Intel chip suffer frame rate issues. The game is alpha, there are changes to the rendering coming and there are known legacy issues. Now is not the time to start a chip war, it's about hoping the devs get the time and resources to properly update then optimise the relevant areas in order that both AMD and Intel run the game well.

I think you'll find the sort of evidence you need is in the screenshot I posted for suggestions thread: http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/217861-blindness-for-using-optics-directly-at-the-sun/