4 IN 1 0 Posted August 10, 2011 Quick! Flood Dwarden e-mail with spam question letters! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmarkwick 261 Posted August 10, 2011 Yes hardware PhysX is GPU accelerated and thus much much faster (think a properly big difference in FPS in especially heavy PhysX scenes)Although it is recommended to have a dedicated PhysX accelerator regardless, not your main videocard as one. I don't know that it's much faster, it's basically taking from your GPU what ought to be on your CPU (unless as you say you have a spare vid card). As many people have 4-core processors nowadays, it may be more performance & feature beneficial to use a spare core instead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalcraze 290 Posted August 10, 2011 As far as I know GPUs are much faster than CPUs in floating point operations. 4 core processors will not be faster than some GF9800 when it comes to PhysX. In fact you can also do stuff like breaking encryptions with GPU nowadays much faster than with CPUs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmarkwick 261 Posted August 10, 2011 It's something I'm prepared to believe :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4600 Posted August 10, 2011 i know NO game using HW acc for basics physics implementation, but rather for particle and cloth simulation. Which, afaik, won't be available in A3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted August 10, 2011 so i fear the first 10m of interview are lost completely ... thankfully nothing really new there ... well maybe one lil thing about improved sound engine but Ivan mentioned it too already ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobcatBob 10 Posted August 11, 2011 so i fear the first 10m of interview are lost completely ... thankfully nothing really new there ... well maybe one lil thing about improved sound engine but Ivan mentioned it too already ... :confused: Good news, but first I heard of it!:) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purepassion 22 Posted August 11, 2011 would sb mind telling me what dwarden said, because this has got special interest for me :) I might already know it but i am not sure if its the same i've got in my head Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wld427 1705 Posted August 11, 2011 Dwarden, why dont you guys just call Arma3, "Ghost Recon Expansion for Arma2"? To be honest mate, you guys took the best military simulator out there, and in a lot of peoples opinions are about to go a completely wrong direction with it. ditch the future stuff Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmarkwick 261 Posted August 11, 2011 Dwarden, why dont you guys just call Arma3, "Ghost Recon Expansion for Arma2"?To be honest mate, you guys took the best military simulator out there, and in a lot of peoples opinions are about to go a completely wrong direction with it. ditch the future stuff Do you really need to spam the forum with this crap? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roberthammer 582 Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) Do you really need to spam the forum with this crap? Because he likes it alot - you can see same thing on armaholic site :p Edited August 11, 2011 by RobertHammer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipper5 74 Posted August 11, 2011 "Ditch the future stuff" when it's this far into development already. Right... Someone obviously doesn't understand how things work. Some of you may continue to throw hissy fits about the futuristic setting, but many more of us are looking forward to it. Frankly, I think the art style of ARMA 3 looks cooler than most other military-based games out at the moment, or up-coming ones. And Ghost Recon is not futuristic crap. That's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter. Because he likes it alot - you can see same thing on armaholic site :p Yeah, Armaholic commenters are quickly becoming the YouTube commenters of this community. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalcraze 290 Posted August 11, 2011 I like "futuristic" stuff myself. But realistic futuristic - the railgun pew-pew russian tanks are too much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windexglow 10 Posted August 11, 2011 Hopefully it'll act like a railgun and not a scifi rail gun (blue radiation, sparkling, laser trail, ectect) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
honkitonk 0 Posted August 11, 2011 Yes and after fighting the enemy the commander says: " Scotty, beam me up" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bradp191 10 Posted August 11, 2011 Stop hating on the rail gun so much. Don't you guys ever watch future weapons? In a few years, they'll be testing them on ships. Tanks and mortars are right behind that. If we get some kind of major breakthrough in capacitor technology, which they're working very hard at, we could see it even sooner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smurf 12 Posted August 11, 2011 Railguns don´t fire lasers ¬¬ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purepassion 22 Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) Please no more discussions about fkk l4z0rs n future! ;) I personally would even appreciate an C-130 variant with an ATL system. Edited August 11, 2011 by PurePassion Share this post Link to post Share on other sites