Comrades in Arms Discussion Board

In case you haven't seen it:

ArmA 2 I/O analysis results

Videos, too!

Interesting reading... Looks like one needs around 16 GB RAM (total) for using AA2 in RAMDisk (around 12 for AA2).
That might be a good excuse to buy a SSD disk instead and install OS and AA2 on that one  ;D

Wow, this and the RamDisk thread really makes me reconsider my plans of buying a x64 System and OS with lots of RAM.
So the options are to have a x32 system with lots of RAM where the RAM being not accessible by the OS is made accessible via Ram disk or to have a x64 system with lots of RAM which the OS can adress but probably won't be used by Arma2 anyway?
I don't want to use a new rig exclusively for Arma2 of course, so the question for me is if I should by a x64 system nevertheless and hope for future developments which will take full advantage of the x64 architecture (Arma2- and not Arma2-related...). You can still use normal operating systems on a x64 system, right?

Yes, these threads will definitely inform my purchasing decisions a few years down the road when I get around to putting together a new computer (right now, Windows 7, it seems, will run better than Vista does on my current system, thus extending its useful life span; can't justify a whole new build right now).

You can run a 32-bit OS on an x64 system - I'm running 32-bit Vista on an Athlon64 system.

@Zwobot
My understanding of the treads are that AA2 don't cache files at all (in RAM), files are read directly from disk almost every time they are accessed. That means lot of disk activity and such thing takes time.....

The idea behind the RAMDisk is to load the whole AA2 installation to ram (which needs around 10-12 GB, Vanilla AA2 is over 8 GB). File reading time will (as you know) fall dramatically when read from RAM instead from HD. The downside about this method is the AA2dir copying to RAM everytime you boot the box (even if it can be done automatically it takes time). Depending on how many mods you're planning to use, 16 GB might be insufficient.

My idea using SSD is that you can install the game on the drive (along with e.g. OS) and gain almost the same performance boost as with RD. SSD might be a better solution since you use it as a normal drive and install/ run other apps from it too.
It still keeps the data after you turn off your computer (stop that silly think btw, you wear out the power button)

I run XP X64 on a dual Athlon64 system and almost all (80%) of my applications is 32bit. 32bit apps (at least on Athlon64 systems) runs equal or faster/ better then on similar 32bit systems (normal performance boost is from 2-15% according to tests)

@Anguis
Even if W7 runs better than Vista XP is still "King-on-The-hill" according to gaming but I guess W7 have some other advantages
Let's bury Vista under it's real name: RIP XP-Me


Edit:
Another way to speed up AA2 a bit: Install the game on a different physical (not partition) drive than your OS or move your Windows paging file to it. This will also reduce disk activity on one drive only.

Hi, guys,

I think the folks working with the ramdisks are selectively loading certain pbo's into the ramdisks and linking to them, so that they don't have to load their whole Arma2 folder. Hopefully, though, when I build a new comp, the SSD prices will have come down.
Now, regarding Vista - I love it and haven't had any problems with it for the last few years. I have had it installed on a computer I built - no driver issues ever cropped up. I've read a lot of the press regarding it, seen the Apple ads - I don't know what they're talking about. And, yeah, here are two advantages that make giving up a few FPS easy - better security than XP and the built-in MS speech recognition engine (I own Dragon NS - no need anymore, MS is better). W7 looks to be even better in both regards (in addition to its performance improvements).

The only thing I'm struggling with regarding W7 is the virtual FS, it's a nightmare (compared to earlier M$ OS). Guess it's the prize to pay for better security (at last)

Just saw an interesting post by one of the ramdisk guys in the official forums - figured you A2 guys might like to see it:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?...tcount=194

I'm considering this one ftm, along with a Radeon 5870. Hope it will give some much needed boost to my system

Here's another one (the bit about the latest beta patch):

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?...tcount=272

In the Arma 2 demo version, I was amazed by the extremely short loading times, and great overall performance. In the full version, the mission loading times are still fast, but some other things are totally different, unfortunately.

I was lazy to read the whole BI forums thread, forgive me, BUT: I sure have noticed the unnormally high disk activity while playing. For me, what is causing this, seems to be the graphic textures loading, especially when zooming (e.g. switching binocs) it's very noticeble and sometimes quite annoying. It doesn't help, if I switch graphic settings to low, or anything...

Although Bohemia made a great game (again), I think they also screwed up something really bad...  ???

I hope there's some other ways to deal with this, than expensive SSD (or maybe setting up RAID ?).
Have you experienced same problems with regular hard disks? Any known performance tweaks?

I think the ultimate point of the thread is that you don't need an SSD, just use a free ramdisk, if you have enough ram. Here's a post about that: which ramdisk to use. I know SSDs have been mentioned, but folks in the thread (and related ones) say the ramdisk is still faster.

Apparently, you only need to load certain pbo's via ramdisk for stutters to be removed. Alternatively, folks have reported improved performance using a flash drive: cf. this post. The new patch is supposed to have helped, as well.

For me it still is like this: Arma2 worl looks nice in close distances up to 50 meters (at most) and everything beyond that looks ruggish. Blocky trees and vehicles etc. The graphics settings do nothing to improve this. Except the fillrate/desktop resolution maybe but using anything above 133% there kills the framerate.

So, will it be with Arma2 like we have with OFP? I play on a computer that has hardware that was top-of-the-line 3 to 5 years after OFP was released, and I still can't max it out! :

a RAMdisk would probably be fast... seems very logical.
I have only 2Gbs, so that's not an option for me at this time.  

Anguis, that's how it will be. Although 'maxing out' OFP doesn't really give you so much eye candy or visual details, but instead in Arma2, the graphic settings have greater effect. I'd just like to get good balance between graphic details and framerate, and in Arma2 I do get that by keeping settings at Normal level, and 100% for the 3D resolution. But those crappy slow loading textures really bug me... and I think I also have experienced same kind of problem than Zwobot told about.