barrance

Good thing. But I often think when people worry about this stuff, just dont do it? Like hiding in bushes to escape zombies. If you dont like it, just dont do it!

Hmm, will see what I make of the changes when we get to try the next hotfix, but personally I dont think its really necessary. I played a good 5 hours yesterday, half night half day, in high population areas, using non silenced weapons around towns/airfields when I had to, and while yeah I got rushed by zombies a few times, it was never a problem. Ran them into trees/up hills/into buildings, took out ones I needed to. Im not sure if people are giving this game the patience it deserves. Yes you want to loot that guys dead body by the airfield, but if you do get seen, the answer is to leg it for miles, shake the zombies off, then try and stealth your way in again. I think some people have the view that something like that is a waste of 20 mins, where as for me thats the whole point of the 20 mins... The 200->80m change sounds fine, and im sure you wont razor, ive got alot of faith...but please dont dial anything back too far :) Yesterday was the best dayz i have played since mid summer last year!

Just played a proper 3 hours this morning and it was AMAZING!! Aside from having to really play the game again (havent had to worry at all about zombies since what like...summer last year?) And the performance increase!! My comp is 100% cpu limited, and suddenly I can play properly! Rather than an average fps of 20-30 fps, im now more like 30-35, but without fps drop spikes around towns. its amazing

you clearly all got trolled

400fps constant on max settings, 16x AA and high post processing, but drops to 7-10 in cherno

Like, i dunno other people, but I like my games to be hard. Lets say im playing any old RPG, if its easy, it gets boring quickly. Surely thats pretty normal? Dayz is a survival game. Surely then, survival should be hard? The reason why people are getting bored of Dayz (and presumably a few then ending up getting their script on) is that surviving is easy. Have you ever actually died from hunger/thirst? lol I dont even know what happens if youre food bar goes too far down, and ive been playing since May last year lol Zombies are then the second layer of survival, and for far too long now, theyve been absoloutely ignorable. Theyre an occasional nusance when youre refilling a chopper or something lol Its been ridiculous for so long how little zombies can hear gun fire. We as players can hear gunshots from miles away (obviously not literally...love that you have to point that out in this game :D ) and zombies have just for some reason completely ignored them. Finally, we have a zombie game with some actual dangerous zombie mechanics! You shoot that player in Cherno, you better be fucking quick looting the body! So yeah, every single step taken to make this game more challenging (up to a point of literally making it impossible to survive) makes it more of a game, more of what it actually is, and more fun!

la pantalons paluda!

So much better now innit :D

This really is the logical conclusion to the RPG genre isnt it... It is also an almost perfect blend of the 3 computer games that I have ever really played. Fallout 2, FF7 and CSS...

@ rabbiteers! http://www.offthegridnews.com/2011/01/20/the-real-other-white-meat/ Rabbit meat has the most protein by weight...just thought interesting

If you need blood, you will go after any animal. If you need to, and you find a rabbit, you will hunt it. And getting 2 bits of meat out of a rabbit doesnt make sense in a literal sense, so 1 bit of more robust meat does. In fact, rabbits a pretty dam robust form of meat anyway. Proper meaty. Beyond that, its fun...relax, its a game. You sparked my interest to look into it. According nutritiondata.self.com, rabbit meat contains 173 calories per 100g, whereas beef provides 142. Far from conclusive stuff. There are like 500 versions of each type of meat lol depending on the cut, how fatty it is etc...Im just at work, bored...and want to be playing 1.7.5...

ohhh and FLIPPING ATVS!!! :D :D Finally :D Woah!! And damage processing zombies thingy...freeing up CPU cycles. Any idea how much of an impact that would have? VERY interested in that with my computer! As im 100% sure my cpu is currently the limiting factor. And my fps diiies in the presence of zombies. Hopeful man :D

Amaaaaazing. Have been waiting with baited breath for this update for ages. Zombies spawning/being able to damage/pull you from cars is the most exciting bit for me. I can see that creating some iiiintense situations! Ahhh come on work day. Please hurry up and be over...Should finish work by 5 today, so back home by 6, giving me 2 hours or so before girlfriend gets home... then go go go!!

Just wondering about something that came to me while playing the other day. Is it a) possible, and B) if so does anyone know of any private hives out there that are designed to get the best performance out of peoples machines? I just thought this after joining a private hive recently. Its brilliant, and for the near future I cant see myself playing anywhere else, but the only slight downside is that they have a good twice the normal number of zombies. Now, im not against that as a gameplay mechanic at all, I think its awesome (if youre gonna fire your gun in a town you better make dam sure theres a good reason!) but the only thing I have noticed is more significant fps slow downs, even in only moderate/small size towns. Anyway, this got me thinking. As ive read that servers can peform better/worse than others, down to server set settings such as grass draw distance (and im sure others) would it not be possible for someone to set up a private hive of which the whole purpose was to get the best performance possible? I dunno, for example having a reduced number of zombies (but say, a much higher hit damage or something?) and low grass distance/high levels of fog and whatever else can be done to get an extra few fps out of peoples machines who need a bit of pandering to! So yeah, is it possible? And if so...do they exist? Id be all over it like a rash, and I get the feeling quite a few others would too! edit: oh and also, removing empty tin cans etc. from the loot table! Would that not reduce the cpu load by a fair whack?

ahhh come on guys, i answered that so clearly already lol Can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that every single last possible tweak that can be done, I have done (and with good results!) But all its done is turned my piece of crap into a slightly better optimised piece of crap (still hasnt stopped me thoroughly enjoying dayz since mid last year, but the more the merrier when it comes to dayz!) E7300 2.66ghz dual core GTS 250 4gb ram Does the job...barely lol 30-35fps in the middle of nowhere 20-25 in small towns 10-15 in cherno/elektro

yup i know i can never escape from it completely, but as I said before, even if a "high performance" server just meant i got 18fps in big cities instead of 15 or something like that it would be a huge bonus to me. And ive thought about trying to upgrade bits of computer, but bear in mind I dont, and I will never use this computer for any game other than dayz. Ever...like...ever. Full stop... Ever. So yeah, if im upgrading a processor, or buying a new graphics card, then im literally suddenly spending an extra £50-100 or something simply so I can get a few more fps in Dayz. And yeah, thats not going to happen. Not for a long time anyway. Me and my girlfriend are living well below the breadline at the moment. Was genuinely a struggle to justify buying Arma in the first place, let alone upgrade my computer to play it! So yeah, if that is possible then (all the tweaks ive talked about so far, decreased view distance, less zombies, less loot, small capacity) has anyone done it? I guess its unlikely, as I presume most people who are going to be setting up their own servers, are also likely going to be people who have invested a fair amount of money in their gaming computers. Can't imagine many people with a £1000 computer compensating the quality of their own server for people like myself to have it running better! But, you never know! :D

...i swear this is a thread full of people missing the point somewhat lol Of course, turning off post processing/AA etc. makes a huge difference to performance. But this all has absoloutely nothing to do with this thread. Until recently I have spent alot of time playing dayz with every setting bar none on very low/off if possible, a draw distance of 500, at 1024x768. This thread is coming from someone (and i know a large amount of other people) who aren't keen gamers (to be completely honest I fucking hate computer games, dayz is just in a different world) so as such have shitty standard home computers not designed for it. For these people who will always have all the settings turned down to the absoloute lowest, there is still however some discrepency performance wise server to server, as the individual servers settings dictate the minimum setting possible for a variety of settings. These include to my knowledge the view distance of the 'fog', the minimum object detail of the grass (you can turn the grass off in your settings with object detail, but a minimum amount of grass is enforced by the server to prevent people from exploiting this to see ghillies hiding in the grass for example) and im sure some others. So my question is, coming from the angle of someone who has done absoloutely everything possible to maximise performance (every config, launch parameter and in game setting tweak possible, nvidia control panel settings, ramdisk etc.) what else can be done server side for people like myself to get a bit extra out of our computers? If for example there are servers that have the minimum draw distance of grass set to half that of an "average" server, and a maximum view distance of 500, and half the number of (much stronger...) zombies, and a max capacity of 20 or something, would it then not be possible to make a server of which the whole point is providing a place for people with shit computers to have a better crack at playing it? Granted it would serve absoloutely no purpose to people with good computers (as they want to be able to see further than 500 metres..) but they can just stay away. I just want to know, if in ANY way, it would be possible for someone to host a specifically aimed "high performance for shit computers" server?

logged out in the woods north east of the nea. Heard gunshots during the "setup completed" screen, spawned in to the You are dead screen...woop woop

Thats cool, just make that a part of the server construction as well. So, a server with lets say a max of 25 players or something, and then low zombie count, short draw distances etc. Even if it only made a difference of a few fps, I know I for one would be an instant convert! And then if it seemed to be popular, surely a few more servers similar to it could spring up? Just given the insanely demanding nature of the Arma2 engine + dayz, I think there will be a massive demographic of people happy to play with a few less zombies and few less visual goodies for the sake of playability. I can vouch 100% for the fact that increased fps = increased enjoyment in dayz. When servers are running well I find it so much more immersive, not just with fluid framerates, but the freedom this then allows you to keep a better watch around you with alt-running etc. As soon as that fps starts to drop i tend to look around me less, as I cant really see much anyway with a jerky, jumpy look around to the side. so yeah, its surely doable? And surely if the fps lag is due to the persons limited cpu for example, then the framerate changes comes down more to the individuals location/number of nearby zombies etc.? Sure the server weight might have some bearing, but again, if you reduce the max capacity anyway...game on?

I was just wondering if anyone out there in the know could shed some light for me on the impact that processor cache size has on performance in Arma/Dayz? I presume that due to the nature of the engine (large view distances, lots of loot/other objects being loaded when around cities) that this would be quite an important factor, but to be honest dont really understand this stuff beyond the fundamentals. Im asking this with the view to upgrade my processor at some point, so yeah, with a limited budget (and bearing in mind that the only thing the computer will ever be used for is dayz) would I be better off looking at a processor with a larger cache size? Or saving a bit of money in that area and getting something with a few more hz/cores?

bleh, confused man right here lol im beginning to think its not going to be worth it. Just to hold on till prolly next year when i can afford a whole new pc, and in the mean time just hope the standalone is better optimised :D I guess unless anyone thinks ill get a noticable difference with a Dual Core E8400, 3.0G, 6MB over a Dual Core E7300, 2.66, 3MB... Bah, its going to be minimal isnt it.

Wow cheers for all the thoughts guys. Puppetworx you nailed it lol Thats the two processors im weighing up between. And you reckon the Q6600 then? Have read about it all over the place, and it seems pretty darn popular (or, at least it did in like 2008 lol) My only worries with it are this: I am literally only upgrading to play dayz better. The only other games I have played before are CSS, fallout 1/2 and commander keen lol So yeah, its when you say that generally clock speed is more important that I feel a bit hesitant moving from a 2.6ghz clock to a 2.4ghz. I understand that having extra cores will free up processing power as windows etc. can be dealt with 'somewhere else'. But my main question I guess is this, is dayz optimized so that having extra cores makes much of an impact? Because basically, if it isnt then the extra cores will be lost on me. Again, I will never use the computer for anything else :D I mean, I will, but lets just imagine I wont :P

Hmm...never even looked at AMD processors myself. Am a bit of a home bear, tend to stick to what I know... Also, having an old dell build, im presuming its limited as to what processor I can put in it? Have only heard of intel processors running in it. But yeah also, my budget is well below these kinds of thing. Im looking at dual cores vs quad cores still lol Am currently deciding between a 3ghz dual core with 6mb cache, against a 2.4ghz quad with an 8mb cache. Just dont know which elements of the CPU are most important with the Arma engine...

i agree. nothing to add. ...

Okay, I have spent alot of time looking into how to get the best out of my machine (the term computer seems somewhat generous) and have come across all sorts of information, mostly similar, that has resulted in good performance boosts. The one thing however that I have neeever manage to find confirmation on, is a couple of the details settings in game. I seem to remember object detail being the biggest hit, and one where the best option to max out your fps is to have it at its lowest, but everywhere I go I come across posts in threads etc. where people talk in very uncertain terms that they have heard that some settings if put on very low/low will no longer be calculated by the graphics card and will instead be processed by the CPU. If this is the case I would love to know about it, as with an old non-overclockable dell E7300 I think this is likely to be the worst part of the machine given how CPU intensive dayz is. So yeah, can anyone confirm or deny these rumours without terms such as "i heard" and "i think"? lol would be well appreciated.