November Round-up

[zfleming12 395]

Why should I have to invest into a ssd to enjoy this game??

[Aceleader51 8]

Why should I have to invest into a ssd to enjoy this game??

You don't. An SSD would just make it run better. Like pretty much every game out there runs better with an SSD. I love mine and it is the best upgrade I ever got for my PC.

[zfleming12 395]

So if I already have a decent gaming system of a PC then it shouldn't matter?

[Aceleader51 8]

I would say it shouldn't that much. I can't be sure though as I haven't had access to the game to try it out myself. My presumption is that if you can run the Mod then do not expect to not be able to run the SA.

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

My rig is fairly outdated but I have confidence that I will run a decent looking version of the SA (for my tastes).

 

It apparently ran the Mod a lot better than people who had faster machines for some odd reason.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a slightly older mid range rig like mine has less inherent problems than a higher end rig due to the game being optimized for a certain PC power "sweet spot". It makes sense to focus on making it run smoother for the vast majority and fine tune the higher res crowd later.

[HumanBeing25 299]

My rig is fairly outdated but I have confidence that I will run a decent looking version of the SA (for my tastes).

 

It apparently ran the Mod a lot better than people who had faster machines for some odd reason.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a slightly older mid range rig like mine has less inherent problems than a higher end rig due to the game being optimized for a certain PC power "sweet spot". It makes sense to focus on making it run smoother for the vast majority and fine tune the higher res crowd later.

That's right. Arma 2 ran better in conjunction with older system and ran better if you turned some of your settings up.

Ironic, right? Let's hope the SA does not feature these problems.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

That's right. Arma 2 ran better in conjunction with older system and ran better if you turned some of your settings up.

Ironic, right? Let's hope the SA does not feature these problems.

 

Hey that's not irony, it's just counter intuitive!

 

Edited November 9, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[St. Jimmy 1631]

That's right. Arma 2 ran better in conjunction with older system and ran better if you turned some of your settings up.

Ironic, right? Let's hope the SA does not feature these problems.

I'm pretty sure it's about the same. Though you can likely relay more on your CPU now if you've bad GPU. Arma 2 editor is about the highest what you should expect.

[HumanBeing25 299]

Hey that's not irony, it's just counter intuitive.

Isn't it ironic that you're required to make your PC do more stuff to increase the amount of work your PC can do, i.e., you're required to increase workload to increase frames produced per second?

 

Out of curiosity, why did Dean say that we'd be better off buying a SSD for our operating system AND the game. Wouldn't one SSD only used for the game/steam/whatever else, be sufficient?

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

That's right. Arma 2 ran better in conjunction with older system and ran better if you turned some of your settings up.

Ironic, right? Let's hope the SA does not feature these problems.

 

I do not think that it will likely be the same in that respect personally. I hope not for those of you with the shinier machines.

 

I was only saying how games are often tailored to the median power requirements and display definitions that the public use.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Isn't it ironic that you're required to make your PC do more stuff to increase the amount of work your PC can do, i.e., you're required to increase workload to increase frames produced per second?

 

Twas a joke, good sire. 

 

But it's not always that way. Arma is just very picky and seems to do things in weird ways. Let me provide a small example: is it easier to render 1000 trees, or is it easier to render 100 trees in full detail and 900 in LOD? Well, intuition would tell you the latter (that is, after all, the less graphically demanding option). However, as you move around in the environment, that means the engine has to swap out 900 LOD models into different states, all depending on how far away you are. Objects may have anywhere from 2 to 6 different LOD states. That takes up a lot of processing power, thus the seemingly ironic slow down despite the fact that the graphical settings are actually lower.

 

And um... I think he's just saying that installing your OS on an SSD is wise if you buy one, because it will make your computer will boot uber fast. It's like if I said "you should buy a car for work and travel." I'm not saying buy two cars. I'm saying, use it for both purposes.

Edited November 9, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[finalstraw 193]

I'm not worried about the client performance, it's likely going to be similar to Arma2 or slightly better. Unless you have an utter potato rig most people will be fine.

 

I am more concerned about the settings and hope some of them will be either locked down or have limited changeability. That sounds strange, but it's simply because people have a tendency just to stick everything on Low to try and gain some advantage in spotting players.

[Zanders 65]

Guess some of you was wrong and i was right.

There is no release anytime soon.

 

I honestly think we are looking at maybe 2-3 months!

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Guess some of you was wrong and i was right.

There is no release anytime soon.

 

You are probably the most pompous person I have ever encountered.

[Grabarz (DayZ) 95]

Isn't it ironic that you're required to make your PC do more stuff to increase the amount of work your PC can do, i.e., you're required to increase workload to increase frames produced per second?

 

Out of curiosity, why did Dean say that we'd be better off buying a SSD for our operating system AND the game. Wouldn't one SSD only used for the game/steam/whatever else, be sufficient?

No clue where he mentioned this, but I guess he meant an SSD for both at the same time. System memory and GPU memory are more important, and of course and first of all a decent GFX card. Naturally one isn't good without the other. CPU/mem -> GFX speed/mem -> HD Speed is the correct order where investments are most necessary. Where an SSD for system and apps are absolutely sufficent. Before getting a second SSD, max your RAM.

[HumanBeing25 299]

Twas a joke, good sire. 

 

But it's not always that way. Arma is just very picky and seems to do things in weird ways. Let me provide a small example: is it easier to render 1000 trees, or is it easier to render 100 trees in full detail and 900 in LOD? Well, intuition would tell you the latter (that is, after all, the less graphically demanding option). However, as you move around in the environment, that means the engine has to swap out 900 LOD models into different states, all depending on how far away you are. Objects may have anywhere from 2 to 6 different LOD states. That takes up a lot of processing power, thus the seemingly ironic slow down despite the fact that the graphical settings are actually lower.

 

And um... I think he's just saying that installing your OS on an SSD is wise if you buy one, because it will make your computer will boot uber fast. It's like if I said "you should buy a car for work and travel." I'm not saying buy two cars. I'm saying, use it for both purposes.

Except SSDs are extremely overpriced, they often cannot have much space (for obvious reasons - more space tends to mean a slowdown in performance).

If the game doesn't run sufficiently, I'll consider buying a 60GB ssd for the game to run on... sounds like a fair investment. The 120gb ones, however, are very pricey for what you get.

[HumanBeing25 299]

No clue where he mentioned this, but I guess he meant an SSD for both at the same time. System memory and GPU memory are more important, and of course and first of all a decent GFX card. Naturally one isn't good without the other. CPU/mem -> GFX speed/mem -> HD Speed is the correct order where investments are most necessary. Where an SSD for system and apps are absolutely sufficent. Before getting a second SSD, max your RAM.

... lol no. That's not how games work, but anyway, if you read his Reddit posts or just scroll a bit back in this thread (I don't have to freaking link every post, just look people!!!) you'll find where he said it.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Except SSDs are extremely overpriced, they often cannot have much space (for obvious reasons - more space tends to mean a slowdown in performance).

If the game doesn't run sufficiently, I'll consider buying a 60GB ssd for the game to run on... sounds like a fair investment. The 120gb ones, however, are very pricey for what you get.

 

Well of course. You can run a SSD side by side with a regular hard drive. Just use the SSD for your OS and any high-priority programs you have, like DayZ.

Edited November 9, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[CapricornOne (DayZ) 379]

I honestly think we are looking at maybe 2-3 months!

 

Today it almost looked like we had reached the performance target, but the bug we fixed had a more subtle bug hiding behind it.

Where do you pull these statements from? Or are you just dying to be right? :huh:

[Elo 44]

Every modern game streams texture data from secondary storage. Every game benefits from SSDs. I don't see the big deal, unless I missed the quote where rocket said that SSDs are a requirement

Edited November 9, 2013 by Elo

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

Every modern game streams texture data. Every game benefits from SSDs. I don't see the big deal, unless I missed the quote where rocket said that SSDs are a requirement

 

He just said it as a suggestion in passing on Reddit. It isn't a requirement. Like you said, any game can benefit being on a SSD.

[CapricornOne (DayZ) 379]

Like you said, any game can benefit being on a SSD.

The same way as any game can benefit from SLI'd 780ti's.  :thumbsup:

[OfficerRaymond 2064]

If the game doesn't run sufficiently, I'll consider buying a 60GB ssd for the game to run on... sounds like a fair investment.

I think you're missing what exactly SSDs do for a computer.

 

They don't increase FPS, and will not increase your fps (not by any noticeable amount). All they do is get rid of mechanical read components and use digital ones to increase the time that it takes to read and load content from storage. you would however notice a difference in loading times as the game boots though. A hard disk has to start spinning to read the data whilst an SSD can immediately access the data. they both perform relatively the same once the data has been loaded.

 

Buying a 60GB SSD for the mere purpose of increasing FPS isn't a good idea. All it'll do is make your game load faster once the game is on it.

[HumanBeing25 299]

I think you're missing what exactly SSDs do for a computer.

 

They don't increase FPS, and will not increase your fps (not by any noticeable amount). All they do is get rid of mechanical read components and use digital ones to increase the time that it takes to read and load content from storage. you would however notice a difference in loading times as the game boots though. A hard disk has to start spinning to read the data whilst an SSD can immediately access the data. they both perform relatively the same once the data has been loaded.

 

Buying a 60GB SSD for the mere purpose of increasing FPS isn't a good idea. All it'll do is make your game load faster once the game is on it.

Mate, I've written my own games, I've written plenty of C++ software. Don't try and educate me.

Edited November 9, 2013 by HumanBeing25

[OfficerRaymond 2064]

Mate, I've written my own games, I've written plenty of C++ software. Don't try and educate me.

Well, then don't say something that is wrong and I won't have to... lol.

 

I'm failing to realize what coding software has to do with hard drives and solid-state-disks?