PDA

View Full Version : Arma2OAserver.exe versus in-game hosted



MissionCreep
Feb 14 2011, 20:21
Hello,

I've done a BIS Forum search, but nothing seems to come up directly related to my question (so sorry in advance if this has been discussed before).

When is it better to run the server application (.exe) on your Arma2 computer and when is it better to host MP games, using the "Host" function inside of Arma2/OA?

- For example, if you are a single player but want to play MP with AI teammates or want to choose which side you play on in an MP game? Host or .exe?

- And another scenario:

I play MP almost exclusively as 2-person Co-op over LAN with my team mate (my son). We do not host external guests. We have a lower-end Arma2 rigs that are fine for SP and MOST 2-player MP missions/campaigns (including such monster islands as Lingor and Fallujah):

Specs are Dell GX620, Intel Duo Core 3.2 GHz, 4 gb RAM, WinXP SP3, ATI Radeon HD 5570 - 1 GB VRAM, 500 Gb SATA2 disk.

Sometimes, we notice slowdowns/lags, which I assume is due to AI running amuck, usually after a few hours into MP missions of Warfare, Insurgency etc. If we are geographically separated apart, there is also a lag/slowdown. Another lag is when one of both players are moving fast over terrain (eg in an aircraft).

I also know that some scripts only work on the .exe server (correct?).

So basically my question is this:

Based on the design and implementation of the two host/server (server.exe) modes, under what conditions is it preferable to run the Hosted setup, and under what conditions is it better to run the .exe on a machine that is also running Arma2?

I am asking specifically as someone who plays small numbers of real players over a LAN, but in general, it would be interesting to know which is better suited for what situations.

Celery
Feb 14 2011, 20:27
If you have just one computer to host the game on, you just host the game as a player. If you have a spare computer to run a dedicated server, it will do most of the AI calculations without putting stress on any player's PC. If the server is using a different connection, you will also see a decrease in lag for clients. In short, a dedicated server is the better option if you have a separate PC to run it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_server

MissionCreep
Feb 14 2011, 21:22
If you have just one computer to host the game on, you just host the game as a player. If you have a spare computer to run a dedicated server, it will do most of the AI calculations without putting stress on any player's PC. If the server is using a different connection, you will also see a decrease in lag for clients. In short, a dedicated server is the better option if you have a separate PC to run it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_server

Thanks ... a followup question then. What does the Arma2 server do primarily? You said that on a dedicated server situation, AI is done on the server. I assume graphics are mostly handled by the client? I also assume that AI is CPU-bound, while graphics/rendering is limited largely by the VPU/VRAM (video card), and that the server is mostly passing spatial information/instructions back and forth to the clients? Does the server require a gaming-quality video card, and substantial RAM? (My inclination is then that it does not*).

So, say I had a 3rd identical computer to the ones I spec'ed above, (Intel duo Core 3.2 GHz), but with a less powerful or an on-board video card. Would the 3rd computer be worth using as a dedicated game server? Intuitively, I would assume you want a server to have the most processing power of the 3. So this conflicts with statement (*) above. Any idea here? Or does the division of labour (server=AI, clients=rendering) mean servers and clients have different operating specs? Thanks.

Mosh
Feb 14 2011, 21:32
Thanks ... a followup question then. What does the Arma2 server do primarily? You said that on a dedicated server situation, AI is done on the server. I assume graphics are mostly handled by the client? I also assume that AI is CPU-bound, while graphics/rendering is limited largely by the VPU/VRAM (video card), and that the server is mostly passing spatial information/instructions back and forth to the clients? Does the server require a gaming-quality video card, and substantial RAM? (My inclination is then that it does not*).

So, say I had a 3rd identical computer to the ones I spec'ed above, (Intel duo Core 3.2 GHz), but with a less powerful or an on-board video card. Would the 3rd computer be worth using as a dedicated game server? Intuitively, I would assume you want a server to have the most processing power of the 3. So this conflicts with statement (*) above. Any idea here? Or does the division of labour (server=AI, clients=rendering) mean servers and clients have different operating specs? Thanks.

Correct, video card is not important. A 3rd PC is your ideal setup, especially if you like warfare and other AI/CPU intensive missions.

xjiks
Feb 14 2011, 21:37
dedicated server is only running in a command line window so there are NO graphics to calculate and the CPU will do the job to manage all the AI units in the missions.
I would say a Pentium 4 Ghz with 3 GB ram and windows XP will do most of the job for mission with 6 to 8 players at the maximum.

And if you crash to desktop, the mission is still running on the server, so you "JIP" (jump in progress) it's better than restart the mission :yay: