quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Thanks guys!


I am using this (Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme @ 3GHz):

"War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -cpu4 -multiaudio -dd_sw -f -px1920 –py1200 -deepColor -altFont


BTW, I always had OK experience with "Full Screen" (i.e. "-f") but if I use "Windowed" (i.e. "-w") I can only get default 1024x768... [&:]


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

This is what I have in the "Target" text cell in my "WiTP AE (Beta)" desktop shortcut.

"C:\Matrix Games\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition\Beta2\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -fw -altFont -cpu4 -deepColor -skipVideo -colorBlind -px1024 -py768

-fw = full screen weekly autosaves
-altFont = in game text uses an alternate font, Lucida Sans I think it is. MUCH easier for me to read!
-cpu4 = presumably makes the game make use of all four of my processor cores
Actually you are telling it to use cpu #4 (just the one cpu). IIRC there is some inefficiency in how it switches multitasks among processors than can make it be slower by using more than one. Not sure if that applies in all cases.
-deepColor = didn't experiment too much with this one but presumably makes the colors a bit more rich and bright
-skipVideo = intro video never plays
-colorBlind = similar to the color setting; I noticed it and thought 'better color maybe?' Didn't experiment much but it seems good.
-px1024 = sets the game to display at 1024 pixels along the width dimension
-py768 = 768 along the height dimension. I run my desktop at 1920 x 1080, but the game cannot run that if I recall. Even if it did the fonts and other details would probably need a microscope to be read! I forget if 1024 x 768 is the lowest or highest the game can run but it works so I'm happy with it.

I originally had the switch syntax plugged into the Target cell of the Start Menu (Quick Start) item for the Beta patched game as the directions for installing the beta patch indicated to do it that way. I subsequently found that plugging it into the desktop shortcut also worked

quote:

The construction of a single C++ binary at Google can open and read hundreds of individual header files tens of thousands of times. In 2007, build engineers at Google instrumented the compilation of a major Google binary. The file contained about two thousand files that, if simply concatenated together, totaled 4.2 megabytes. By the time the #includes had been expanded, over 8 gigabytes were being delivered to the input of the compiler, a blow-up of 2000 bytes for every C++ source byte.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Initially we found more slow down with Intel multi-cores than AMD. I had two AMD 2 cores and found one had slow down with its graphics card, but the other didn't have any slow down problems at all. I read that AMD's switcher that determined what went to which core was better designed than Intel's. The graphics card threw another monkey wrench in the works. Most of the higher end graphics cards have drivers that use as many cores as the machine has and some DirectX calls that WitP uses would hang up the driver.

I've had very good luck with AMD. Most of my computers have run them for years. For some things, Intel is better, but AMD is better for some other tasks. My AMDs machines are 6 core processors and when I'm compiling code, it really moves along.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I'm pretty happy with my new rig so far, Xidax X8 I got for Christmas:
MSI MS-7821 mobo, Intel i5-4690K 3.5GHz, 8GB RAM, Win7 / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 3.9GB

I'm surprised to hear that having high performance makes that much difference for compiling. Are you referring specifically to compiling AE code? I'm just starting into C++ (just got accepted to my new Technical School today! [:'(], second career after academia) so I don't know what I'm talking about.

But I had the impression that even an older low end machine was fine for running IDEs in many contexts. I would've guessed that if the infrastructure made much difference it would only come into play for a context like, an extreme graphically sophisticated game like Skyrim or some other gargantuan application world, say some astronomy or astrophysics application.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Initially we found more slow down with Intel multi-cores than AMD. I had two AMD 2 cores and found one had slow down with its graphics card, but the other didn't have any slow down problems at all. I read that AMD's switcher that determined what went to which core was better designed than Intel's. The graphics card threw another monkey wrench in the works. Most of the higher end graphics cards have drivers that use as many cores as the machine has and some DirectX calls that WitP uses would hang up the driver.

I've had very good luck with AMD. Most of my computers have run them for years. For some things, Intel is better, but AMD is better for some other tasks. My AMDs machines are 6 core processors and when I'm compiling code, it really moves along.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy
My last was a Phenom quad core. I didn't really like it as it ran hot with the processor fan screaming all the time.

I've got an Intel i7 with about 18 gigs of Ram. It runs this stuff just fine. I have a nice big Cooler Master fan on the chip, too, which I think helps. Why the processor companies use the lowest bidder on their fans...?