Forum Jump :

Author Message

Posts: 62

Level: Member

Country: uk
Location: Portsmouth
Occupation: PendragonUK
Age: 55
In-game name: PendragonUK

#100731 Posted at 2011-03-23 21:56        
# cinco : possible that depth of field has blurred clumped up objects to such a degree that they are easier to render.
I have always thought that with ArmA what appears on the screen isn't hard for the graphics card to draw. The difficulty has been figuring out what to put on the screen in the first place. The huge files needed for the textures and moving them about has been the problem. What finally appears on your screen is really quite simple, the tough bit is for the game to decide what to ask the graphics card to draw and the massive textures involved.

As for the post processing effects they are just that post processing, after the event. The CPU dose the fancy stuff and adds the layer to the graphics card. Nothing to be gained by the graphics card in reduced complexity by having depth of field, it has to first draw the edges for it to then blur them. It does give the CPU more to do, I have six cores running at 4GHz. ArmA never maxes the CPU out there are plenty of spare cycles to burn up with fancy effects. There is 8GB of fast RAM but the game never uses more than 2Gb.

I would never want BIS to dumb down ArmA, heck it's the complexity we love. However there is a lot to be said for optimisation, this game needs some! Open up the game to make full use of the system resources it has to hand, if the computer has multiple CPU's GPU's an SSD and a shed load of RAM it should use them, not restrict it's self to using only a small portion of the available hardware.